In that case a couple of dollars should cover it.

alleoops, for that remark, you get ...

WHAT? For someone claiming to be a conservative it seems you have very little understanding of THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Hmm. Obama 'wants a race war'..... I recall him being distraught after the shooting at Sandyhook. Calls to the public to unite and embrace each other despite our differences. Calling for PEACE echoing the statements made by the families of those murdered when there was racial motivation or the suspicion thereof. Pushing for legislation that would prevent mass shootings like 2012 theatre massacre in Colorado, the terrorist attacks on Ft Hood, Boston, Chattanooga.
No, none of these things are any business of the President and he should express his disdain for a country of people he can't stand and make an unscheduled State of the Union address focused on how he can't wait to quit his job.

well, thats your opinion... and I don't claim to be a conservative...

The first paragraph are facts. Factual events that took place in real life involving real people in real time during Obama's two terms as President (the maximum consecutive one elected President can serve as written in the original constitution).
The (unfounded claim) opinion that Obama wants to start a race war is yours. It's also ridiculous. That's what the second paragraph is intended to show. Btw, you have argued against any further gun control laws specifically those dealing with large capacity magazines with specific reference made to some of the aforementioned shootings, complaining again ridiculously that the government is going to take away everyone's guns.
Opinions and facts are different.

your facts and my facts are different... obarry has been shytting on the constitution since day one, and then his lies about it are even deeper...

i don't remember talking with you about gun control, my only stance is i'm against it, but at the same time, the public doesn't need every gun ever made... i've never cared about how much ammo they hold, only the fact the common citizen doesn't need a RPG... you musta been drunk during this alleged argument...

Facts aren't malleable, nor do facts belong to anyone or any group of people. You can't have two opposing facts the truth of one makes the other false.
Obama was elected and reelected through the same political process every other President of the U.S. has been so far and will be as long as there are no changes to the constitution, which conservatives don't want to happen. He hasn't been impeached, nor is there any indication that an impeachment will commence.
Presidents have a tendency to address the nation when significant events take place. They also use the power GIVEN to them by the people to press for change on things that are generally BAD for people like mass shootings, like racially motivated shootings, terrorist attacks, like abuse of force by persons in law enforcement. I don't have to restate the events I mentioned in the first paragraph but I will say this again.

It is YOUR opinion that the President wants a race war, based on a ridiculous unfounded claim that he would declare martial law so he can stay in office. Neither of these two things have any factual merit.

Great. So I guess this is the "Lets politicize the politicization of the victims!" thread, eh?

Sorry, but I fail to see the distinction between using them to show your displeasure with a politician, and the politician using them to show his or her displeasure with a given set of laws.

That is a good question Igor. There are 4 categories of related crimes. One is mass shootings(i.e. Colorado, Sandy Hook), 2terrorist attacks(i.e. Ft Hood, Chattanooga, Boston) 3 race related racially motivated shootings, 4 general shootings.
In most cases the first 2 categories have the least occurrences but the largest number of casualties. They also tend to involve higher capacity magazines and larger caliber weapons.
In most cases the latter 2 involve mostly handguns with lower capacity magazines and have less victims, but higher likely than the first two.
Things have changed. They haven't exactly changed in likelyhood order as listed above rather all have increased. It's a logical fallacy to show displeasure with a politician who can't be in every city in the U.S. that proves to become a hotspot for criminal activity. However that incumbent politician can use his or her power to aid law enforcement and the judicial system when necessary. The best way to do so is by strengthening the judicial system with stiffer and wider ranging penalties when those crimes are committed, such as charging those responsible for trafficking/selling illegal weapons, charging owners who sell to criminals etc.

Addressing the nation after the Boston marathon bombing, or the Charleston church shooting for the sitting President is not 'using a tragedy' If the President didn't act, speak with the mayors governors, police cheifs, he wouldn't be doing his job.
Latching onto the San Francisco pier shooting for a non politician running for office, especially when you target a race relentlessly is.

the only "fact" either of us mentioned is that he's president... other than that it's a wait and see type thing...

How did he become President, twice?
How many of the aforementioned events occurred?
How many cops have shot and killed unarmed blacks?
How many times has Obama publicly called for civilians to attack police?
How many times has Obama publicly called for civilians NOT to riot or commit more violence?
Where's the opinion in actual events that occurred?

Do you know the meaning of the word fact? That is what we will have to wait to see.